Upload
pierrakis
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
1/28
Research report: September 2008
Shifting sands
The changing nature of the early stageventure capital market in the UK
Yannis Pierrakis and Colin Mason
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
2/28
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
3/28
Shifting sandsThe changing nature of the early stage venture capital market in the UK
Foreword
The UK early stage venture capital market is currently experiencing major changes. With private
funds once the bedrock of start-up investment for entrepreneurs moving away from the early
stage, it is not just entrepreneurs but the economy as a whole that will be affected.
The shift comes at a time when there is real pressure for the UK to build great global companies to
match those of the US, India and China as well as a harsher environment in which to start a new
business. But as long as investors continue drifting away from the smaller deals that new rms
depend upon, many businesses will struggle to get a foothold.
This report highlights the growing dependence by entrepreneurs in the UK on public sources of
nance and reveals what is hidden behind the published data relating to the early stage venture
capital market in the UK since 2000. It also considers how successful government interventions
have been in increasing the availability of early stage venture capital.
Clearly, the need for public funds to back companies at the very early stage is now more necessary
than ever. The challenge for public funds is to be able to show that their approach and return on
investment add value to the economy.
This work is part of a series of research projects led by NESTA on early stage investment in the
UK. NESTAs own investment fund adopts a dual approach of direct investment in businesses, and
indirect investment through third-party funds. We also offer business support to help companiesface the challenges of growing a business, and we advise on innovation policy to ensure that the
UK retains its position as the leading private equity market in Europe.
As with all emergent areas of research and analysis, we welcome your comments and your views.
Jonathan Kestenbaum
CEO, NESTA
September, 2008
3
NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.
Our aim is to transform the UKs capacity for innovation. We invest inearly stage companies, inform innovation policy and encourage a culture thathelps innovation to ourish.
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
4/28
Executive summary
The UK boasts the largest private equity
market in Europe, investing 12 billion in
2007. However, there are concerns about the
diminishing volume of early stage venture
capital investment, including seed and start-
up. These concerns have prompted successive
governments to respond with various initiatives
to address the so-called equity gap.
This report seeks to provide answers to thefollowing questions:
Has the supply of early stage venture capital
increased during the recent investment
upswing?
Who are the main providers of early stage
venture capital?
How signicant are government
interventions in increasing the supply of early
stage venture capital?
The report draws on two sources of statistics
the British Venture Capital Association (BVCA)1
annual report on investment activity and the
Library House2 database of investments to
bring an original perspective on the changing
nature of the early stage venture capital
market. It does so by re-working some of the
BVCAs published statistics and by combining
the BVCAs statistics on investment activity
with Library Houses database. These sources
enable us to present a series of perspectives on
different slices of the market.
Early stage venture capital investments
have been extremely volatile
The total amounts invested in early stage
companies (as dened by BVCA3) and
the average size of each investment have
been extremely volatile from one year to the
next, especially in start-up investments. The
average size of early stage investments has
fallen from 1.7million in 2000 to just over
600,000 in 2003, rising again to 1.9 millionin 2006 and falling back to 865,000 in 2007.
Partially, this volatility may be explained by
the small numbers of mega investments which
fall outside the equity gap as conventionally
dened (under 2 million).
The size of investments is highly skewed
towards a large number of relatively small
investments and a small number of large
investments.
Trends in sub-2 million investments have
also been erratic
Investments below 2 million have accounted
for between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of
all venture capital investments between 2001
and 2007. Indeed, the number of companies
requiring investments below 2 million rose by
20 per cent between 2001 and 2007 (from 880
to 1,049). However, the total amount invested
through such investments has followed an
erratic trend. The average investment shrank
sharply between 2002 and 2006, from
700,000 to 393,000, although it recovered
in 2007 to 705,000. As a proportion of totalvalue of investments, investments below
4
See www.bvca.co.uk1.
See www.libraryhouse.net2.
The British Venture Capital3.Association (BVCA) denesthe early stage into twosubcategories: (i) start-up: nancing providedto companies for productdevelopment and initialmarketing. Companies maybe in the process of beingset up or may have been inbusiness for a short time,but have not sold theirproduct commercially; (ii)other early stage: nancingprovided to companiesthat have completed theproduct development stageand require further fundsto initiate commercialmanufacturing and sales.They will not yet begenerating a prot.
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
5/28
2 million accounted for 6 per cent in 2007,
compared with 9 per cent in 2000.
However, investments of less than 500,000
have risen as a share of all sub-2 million
investments from 61 per cent in 2000 to 76 per
cent in 2006, though they fell back to 67 per
cent in 2007, as the average investment sizerose again.
The public sector has become considerably
more important as an investor in both
absolute and relative terms
Deals involving public sector funds, both as
sole investors and with private investors (funds
and individuals), have risen from 18 per cent
of all venture capital investments in 2001 to 43
per cent in 2007.
A growth in co-investment has contributed
to this trend. Co-investment involving bothpublic and private sector investors accounted
for just 6 per cent of all investments in 2001
but rose to 26 per cent by 2007. In amounts
invested, co-investments accounted for 18 per
cent in 2007 compared with just 2 per cent in
2001.
Co-investments are now the dominant form
of public sector venture capital investment,
accounting for 62 per cent of all deals involving
the public sector in 2007 compared with 33 per
cent in 2001.
Business angels have become more
signicant
Separately identifying business angels4 from
the rest of the private sector category reveals
that they have become more signicant in
relative terms. Their share of identiable
private sector investment has doubled from
15 per cent to 30 per cent, between 2001 and
2007. However, given the private nature of
angel investing, these investments identied
by Library House will inevitably only represent
a small proportion of all angel investments and
the gures will be biased towards larger deals.
Business angels are prominent co-investment
partners, involved in approximately half of all
public-private co-investment deals.
Public-private co-investments have become
increasingly signicant sources of early
stage investments
In our analysis we regard early stage
investments as below 2 million and in funding
rounds 1, 2 or 3. Several trends are apparent.
Deals involving public-private co-investors
increased from 11 per cent of all deals in 2001
to 35 per cent in 2007. Co-investment deals
accounted for 37 per cent of total investment
in 2007 compared with 10 per cent in 2001.
Co-investment deals rose from 36 per cent in
2001 to 62 per cent in 2007 as a proportionof deals involving public sector investors.
However, we should not exaggerate the decline
of free-standing public sector investments:
even by 2007 they still accounted for 21 per
cent of all early stage deals (though only 9 per
cent of the total amount invested).
Private sector investors remain important
making over 100 investments in 2007, more
than either co-investment deals or public sector
investments. On their own, they accounted for
more than half (53 per cent) of the amount
invested in early stage deals in 2007.
Business angels have become increasingly
signicant as a source of early stage
investments, from being involved in just 16
per cent of all early stage deals with private
involvement in 2000 to 41 per cent of such
deals in 2007.
Summary
This study has revealed three important
developments that have changed the nature
of the UKs early stage venture capital marketsince 2000.
First, private sector investors are now
responsible for proportionately less investment,
although still prominent, while the public
sector has become proportionately more
signicant.
Second, the composition of early stage private
investors has changed. There has been a shift
from funds to private individuals, including
business angels. This includes mega angels
investing alone, angel syndicates, and other
forms of organised angel investing.
Third, the public sector increasingly invests
with a private partner. Such co-investments are
becoming more common than free-standing
investments.
Business angels are afuent4.individuals who providecapital for a business start-up, usually in exchange forconvertible debt or ownershipequity.
5
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
6/28
The authors
Yannis Pierrakis
Yannis Pierrakis is Investments Research Manager at NESTA. He has previously worked inLuxembourg on major research projects funded by the European Commission, DG Enterprise and at
Cardiff Business School. His main research interests are regional development and innovation and
venture capital. Email: [email protected]
Colin Mason
Colin Mason is Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship,
Strathclyde Business School at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. He is also the David F.
Sobey Visiting Chair of Business at the Sobey Business School, Saint Marys University, Halifax,
Canada. His main research interests are entrepreneurship and regional development, and early
stage venture capital. He is an international authority on business angel nance. He is the foundingeditor of Venture Capital, an international journal of entrepreneurial nance (Taylor and Francis).
Email: [email protected]
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
7/28
7
Contents
Shifting sands
The changing nature of the early stage venture capital market in the UK
1. Introduction 8
2. Dening early stage investments 10
3. Trends in early stage venture capital investments 11
4. Trends in sub-2 million investments 13
5. Types of investors in the early stage venture capital market 14
5.1 Total investment activity: public vs. private investors 15
5.2 Unpacking the private investor category: the signicance of business angels 17
5.3 Early stage deals below 2 million 17
6. Conclusion 20
Appendix 22
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
8/28
Shifting sandsThe changing nature of the early stage venture capital market in the UK
1. Introduction
There are few, if any, dissenters from the viewthat by funding and supporting innovative
companies which, in turn, lead to the
emergence of new industries, the venture
capital industry plays a crucial role in economic
growth and job creation. Paul Gompers
and Josh Lerner, leading US authorities on
this topic, write that venture capital helps
entrepreneurial rms to invest more than
they would otherwise, grow more quickly, and
sustain performance in the long term even
after going public.5
The UK boasts the largest private equity
market in Europe, accounting for one in every
three investments. Statistics on investmentactivity collected by the British Venture
Capital Association (BVCA)6 show a trebling
in the value of investments between 2003
and 2007 to nearly 12 billion, after falling
in the immediate aftermath of the dot-com
collapse (Figure 1). However, the number
of investments has remained fairly stable at
around 1,300 over the same period, despite
uctuations before 2002 (Figure 2).7
Gompers, P. A. and Lerner,5.
J. (2001) The Money ofInvention. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business SchoolPress. p.62.
The main source of statistics6.on venture capital activityin the UK is the BVCAsannual report on investmentactivity, undertaken byPricewaterhouseCoopers,which is compiled from datasupplied by its members atthe time of the survey. Thissurvey attracts a very highresponse rate, achieving 100%in some years.
The gures are not strictly7.comparable on a year-on-year
basis because of changes bothin BVCA membership andin the method of reporting.However, excluding theincrease in membership, thegrowth in investments is stillsubstantial. In addition, theincrease in BVCA membership,is mainly due to big buyouthouses and not venturecapital funds.
Figure 1: Annual private equity and venture capital investment 2001-2007, by value (m)
Source: BVCA
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Total early stage Total expansion Total MBO/MBI
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
9/28
But this is not the whole story. Closer
examination of the details behind these
aggregate statistics suggests that this
expansion in investment activity has been in
private equity rather than venture capital,
propelled by a huge increase in funding for
management buy-outs and buy-ins (MBOs and
MBIs). Their share of total investment increased
from 56 per cent in 2000 to more than 75 per
cent in 2004 and has remained above 60 per
cent since then. This, in turn, has driven up the
average (mean) size of investment to 9 million
in 2007, more than twice its 2001 value.
Young, innovative companies widely regarded
as key drivers of productivity growth and job
creation8 particularly need venture capital
because they require signicant capital up-
front to develop new products in advance
of sales.9 Recent trends in venture capital
investing have therefore raised concerns
that such rms may nd it harder to access
appropriate nance; this is increasing the
proportion of under-capitalised businesses,
which lack the resources to grow and are atincreased risk of failure, and it is reducing the
number of start-ups.10
The reluctance of venture capital rms to make
small investments in early stage businesses can
be attributed to three factors.
First, the costs of investment appraisal and
monitoring are high and xed regardless
of the size of investment; they absorb a
disproportionate amount of investor time
given their signicance and potential return.
Indeed, these costs may actually be higher
in innovative small rms which present many
uncertainties: inexperienced management,
untried markets, technological uncertainties
and timing risks.11
Second, there has been a huge growth in the
size of venture capital funds; the inevitable
outcome has been to drive up deal sizes.
Larger private sector funds do not make more
investments than smaller funds; rather, their
investments are larger.12 Since deal sizes and
stage of investment are related, this has also
resulted in an inevitable shift to later-stage
deals.
Third, these cost issues have been compounded
by the poor returns from early stage venture
9
NESTA (2008) Unlocking the8.
potential of innovative rms.Policy Brieng. London:NESTA.
Oakey, R. (1984) Innovation9.and regional growth insmall high technology rms:evidence from Britain and theUSA. Regional Studies. 18:pp.237-251.
This, of course, is not a10.new concern. Indeed, theidentication of an equitygap dates back to the 1930sand has periodically beenrediscovered since then.
Mason, C. M. and Harrison,11.R. T. (2004) Does investingin technology-based rms
involve higher risk? Anexploratory study of theperformance of technologyand non-technologyinvestments by businessangels. Venture Capital:An International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Finance. 6:pp.313-332.
Almeida Capital (2005) A12.Mapping Study of VentureCapital Provision to SMEsin England and Wales.Shefeld: Small BusinessService.
9
Figure 2: Annual private equity and venture capital investment 2001-2007, by number of deals
Source: BVCA
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
0
400
200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Total early stage Total expansion Total MBO/MBI
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
10/28
0
capital investing. Private equity, in contrast,
has been very protable and has therefore
been favoured by nancial institutions.
Successive governments have responded to
concerns about the perceived diminishing
volume of early stage venture capital
investment, including seed and start-upfunding, with various initiatives. Early initiatives
focused on the creation of new institutions,
notably Industrial and Commercial Finance
Corporation ICFC (now 3i) and junior stock
markets (the Unlisted Securities Market and
AIM). In the 1980s emphasis shifted to tax-
based incentives, starting with the Business
Expansion Scheme, which was replaced in
1994 by the Enterprise Investment Scheme,
and Venture Capital Trusts, introduced in 1995.
Since the election of the Labour Government
in 1997, fund-based schemes, such as Regional
Venture Capital Funds, Early Growth Fundsand University Challenge Funds have been
favoured. The regional development agencies
in Scotland and Wales have created their own
funds.
However, intervention has shifted from the
creation of publicly-funded and managed
funds to hybrid funds in which government
creates incentives which enhance the returns or
lower the risk, in order to attract private sector
institutions to invest in co-funded investment
vehicles that are managed by private sectorfund managers.13 There has been a recent
further shift in favour of publicly supported co-
investment funds which are obliged to invest
alongside private investors in deals identied
by private investors. This is partly a response
to the changing nature of the equity gap
which commentators suggest is now between
500,000 and 2 million, affecting businesses
seeking post-seed but pre-institutional
capital.14, 15
Not everyone is convinced of the need for
government intervention to increase the supply
of early stage venture capital. Indeed, there are
inherent difculties in differentiating between
deserving companies unable to access nance
because of market inefciencies, and those
that cant raise nance because they fail to
meet appropriate investment criteria; the latter
simply reect the effective operation of the
market. Several recent reports have suggested
that there is no longer a shortage of early
stage venture capital.16, 17 Moreover, many
private sector venture capital fund managers
are critical of the investment objectives ofpublicly backed funds and the quality of their
management.18
This report seeks to bring some clarity to
the debate on trends in the supply of early
stage venture capital. Data limitations impose
signicant constraints on our analysis. The
main source of data is the BVCAs annual
report on investment activity; this provides
considerable detail on investment trends,
although the data is only available in aggregateform. Library House has created a database of
venture capital investments.19 The availability
of such information on individual deals allows
considerable exibility in analysis. However,
its coverage is restricted to publicly reported
investments, with attendant limitations in
information capture and classication. Despite
these constraints, we believe that we are
able to bring an original perspective on the
changing nature of the early stage venture
capital market both by re-working some of the
BVCAs published statistics and by combining
the BVCAs statistics on investment activitywith Library Houses database. These sources
enable us to present a series of perspectives on
different slices of the market.
As noted at the outset, venture capital
investment trends are cyclical. Our analysis
covers the period since 2000 when the venture
capital industry returned to normality following
the excesses of the dot-com boom. There
was a decline in investment between 2000 and
2002 as venture capital rms adjusted to the
loss of many of their late-1990s investments,but the investment market started to recover
from around 2003. We seek to answer three
questions:
Has the supply of early stage venture capital
increased during the recent investment
upswing?
Who are the main providers of early stage
venture capital?
Specically, how signicant are government
interventions in increasing the supply of early
stage venture capital?
2. Dening early stage investments
A lack of consistency in denitions is one of
the primary reasons for the lack of consensus
about the scale of early stage investment
activity.
The British Venture Capital Association (BVCA)denes the early stage into two sub-categories:
Murray, G. (2007) Venture13.capital and governmentpolicy. In Landstrm, H.(ed.) Handbook of Researchon Venture Capital.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.pp.113-151.
Almeida Capital, op. cit.14.
Hayton, K., Thom, G., Percy,15.V., Boyd, C. and Latimer,K. (2008) Evaluation ofthe Scottish Co-InvestmentFund, A Report to ScottishEnterprise. Glasgow:Scottish Enterprise.
Library House (2006)16.Beyond the Chasm theventure capital backedreport 2006. Cambridge:Library House in associationwith UBS.
BVCA (2006) Report17.on Investment Activity.London: BVCA.
Almeida Capital (2005)18.op. cit.
Library House began19.
collecting data on venturecapital in the UK in 2004.Since this date it hasactively sourced all newdeals throughout theUK and where possibleidentied the past deals thecompanies were involvedin. As a consequence thedata prior to 2004 may notbe as comprehensive as inlater years.
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
11/28
Start-up: nancing provided to companies1.
for product development and initial
marketing. Companies may be in the
process of being set up or may have been in
business for a short time, but have not sold
their product commercially.
Other early stage: nancing provided to2. companies that have completed the product
development stage and require further
funds to initiate commercial manufacturing
and sales. They will not yet be generating a
prot.
The European Venture Capital Association
(EVCA) denition of early stage separates the
seed stage from the start-up stage to create an
additional sub-category. Seed capital is dened
as nancing provided to research, assess and
develop an initial concept before a business has
reached the start-up phase.
Library House classies its investments
in terms of nancing rounds rather than
stages of nance. However, it does identify
companies at the product development stages,
dened as companies that have produced
prototypes with a product being improved for
commercialisation.
A limitation of these denitions is that they
do not take account of the amount invested.
The equity gap concept includes bothstage of investment and size of investment
components. Government regards the upper
limit of the equity gap to be 2 million.20 In our
analysis, we therefore separate the early stage
into two categories based on the amount of
investment they are seeking to raise:
Investments below 2 million.
Investments above 2 million.
3. Trends in early stage venture capitalinvestments
The BVCAs investment statistics reveal that the
amounts committed to early stage investments
have been extremely volatile on a year-on-
year basis, especially for start-ups (Table 1a).
As a share of total investment by value, early
stage investments have fallen from 11 per
cent in 2000, albeit erratically, to less than 4
per cent in 2007. The number of companies
raising venture capital has been less volatile,ranging from 398 to 502, and accounts for a
rising share of all investments (31 per cent in
2001; 38 per cent in 2007) (Table 1b). The
average size of early stage investments has
also been extremely volatile, falling from 1.7
million in 2000 to just over 600,000 in 2003,
rising to 1.9 milion in 2006 and falling back to
865,000 in 2007 (Table 1c).
Library House data provides further insight
into these statistics, highlighting the skewed
nature of early stage investments. The meaninvestment size for a sample analysis of 122
investments in companies (in 2007) at the
product development stage was 2.9 million
whereas the median was 1 million. The nine
1111
HM Treasury/Small Business20.Service (2003) Bridging theFinance Gap: next steps inimproving access to growthcapital for small businesses.London: HMSO.
Table 1: UK early stage investments
1a. Amount invested (m)
Source: BVCA Report on Investment Activity (various years)
Start-up 190 531 160 96 73 99 163 175
Other early 244 415 222 188 190 196 227 528
stage
Total early 434 946 382 284 263 295 390 703
stage
Early stage 3.6 9.3 5.6 4.2 6.5 6.6 8.2 11.0
as a percentage
of total investment
2007Finance stage 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
12/28
largest deals had an average size of 17
million and the next 18 had an average size of
5.7 million. The average investment of the
remaining 95 companies was 978,000 In asimilar analysis for 2006, the average deal size
for a sample of 123 companies at the product
development stage was nearly 2 million
compared with a median of 545,000 (Table 2).
The four largest deals had an average size of
19 million and the next seven an average sizeof 4.9 million. The average investment of the
remaining 96 companies was 569,000.
2
This is only a sample of deals21.
at the product developmentstage. These are investmentsthat were made tocompanies that are currently(2008) at the productdevelopment stage, and atthe time of the investmentwere either at the conceptor product developmentstage. Companies that arenot currently at the productdevelopment stage, buthave received investmentsin previous years whenthey were at productdevelopment stage, are notincluded in this sample.Therefore, this samplemay be biased towards
companies that have notexited (out of business orany other exit) or have takenmore time to exit or moveup the development ladder.
1b. Number of companies
1c. Average amount invested (000)
Source: BVCA Report on Investment Activity (various years)
Source: BVCA Report on Investment Activity (various years)
Source: Calculated from Library House database
Start-up 207 245 208 190 185 165 190 153
Other early 295 255 285 264 242 233 218 256
stage
Total early 502 500 493 454 427 398 408 409
stage
Early stage 38 38 38 35 34 33 31 35
as a percentage
of total investment
2007Finance stage 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Start-up 918 2,167 769 505 395 600 858 1,144
Other early 827 1,627 779 712 785 841 1,041 2,062
stage
Total early 865 1,892 775 626 616 741 956 1,719
stage
2007Finance stage 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
2001 51 155,158 3,042 380
2002 55 87,760 1,596 400
2003 42 108,487 2,583 450
2004 85 115,083 1,354 400
2005 101 206,974 2,049 575
2006 123 244,509 1,988 545
2007 122 352,959 2,893 1,000
Number of deals Amounts invested Average MedianYear
Table 2: Median size of investments in product development stage companies (000) 21
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
13/28
This analysis gives us two important insights
into early stage investment. First, the highly
skewed nature of early stage investments,
involving a large number of relatively small
investments and a small number of large
investments, means that it is potentially
misleading simply to focus on trends in the
amounts invested. Second, variations in thenumber of mega-investments in any year are
likely to explain year-on-year volatility in those
amounts invested in early stage deals.
4. Trends in sub-2 million investments
We have seen how the statistics are likely to
be exaggerated by small numbers of atypical
mega investments. One way of avoiding
distortion in our analysis is to restrict the focus
to investments of less than 2 million, a sumtypical of early stage investments. However,
this approach has two limitations: BVCA
statistics do not break down such investments
by stage; and it is not possible to differentiate
between initial and follow-on investments.
Investments below 2 million have accounted
for between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of all
investments in the period 2001-7 (Table 3a).
The number of companies raising amounts ofless than 2 million has risen by 20 per cent
from 880 to 1,049 between 2001 and 2007.
However, their share of total investment has
followed an erratic trend, accounting for 6
per cent in 2007, compared with 9 per cent in
2000 (Table 3b). The average size of sub-2
million investments fell sharply between 2002
and 2006, from 700,000 to just 393,000,
recovering in 2007 to 705,000 (Table 3c).
The falling size of average investments (to
2006) reects the increasing signicance of
investments of less than 500,000. Thesehave risen as a share of all sub-2 million
investments from 61 per cent in 2000 to 76
13
Source: BVCA Report on Investment Activity (various years)
Table 3: Investments of less than 2m
3a. Number of companies
0-4.9 53 92 38 16 18 19 19 6
5-9.9 19 11 11 9 14 13 8 14
10-19.9 28 21 19 27 14 18 23 16
20-49.9 110 80 100 95 80 47 40 61
50-99.9 138 109 98 114 105 87 84 79
100-199.9 161 198 172 167 171 145 135 128
200-499.9 279 258 291 283 296 216 225 230
500-999.9 141 125 146 169 165 180 195 172
1,000-1,999 120 115 156 152 152 181 204 176
Total 0-499.9 788 769 729 711 698 545 534 534
Total 0-2m 1,049 1,009 1,031 1,032 1,015 906 933 882
Investments of less than 67 76 71 69 68 60 57 61
500,000 as a percentage
of investments of under 2m
Investments of under 2m as a 79 77 78 80 79 76 71 74
percentage of all investments
2007Investment size (000s) 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
14/28
per cent in 2006, falling back to 67 per cent
in 2007 (Table 3a), while their share of the
amount invested in deals of under 2 million
has risen from 19 per cent to 35 per cent over
the same period (Table 3b).
In the next section, we explore the extent to
which trends in sub-2 million investments
reect the changing nature of early stage
investors. We highlight both the growing
signicance of public sector venture capital
funds, which now dominate this segmentof the market, and the changing nature of
public sector participation. Public sector funds
typically have a maximum investment size
(250,000 or 500,000) hence their growing
signicance serves to drive down average
investment sizes.
5. Types of investors in the early stageventure capital market
We now turn to the Library House database
to investigate further the shifting trends inthe UKs venture capital market. We have
already discussed the limitations associated
4
0-4.9 * * * * * * * *
5-9.9 * * * * * * * *
10-19.9 1 * * * * 1 * *
20-49.9 8 3 3 3 2 5 2 2
50-99.9 22 8 7 8 6 13 8 6
100-199.9 54 29 23 23 21 35 28 19
200-499.9 171 88 86 86 79 117 88 87
500-999.9 206 95 98 115 100 156 153 145
1,000-1,999 278 174 215 215 186 307 301 337
Total 0-499.9 256 128 119 120 108 171 126 114
Total 0-2m 740 397 432 450 394 634 580 596
Investments of less than 35 32 28 27 27 27 22 19
500,000 as a percentage
of investments of under 2m
Investments of under 2m as a 6 4 5 8 10 14 12 9
percentage of all investments
2007Investment size (000s) 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Mean investment (000) 705 393 419 436 388 700 622 677
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Note: * indicates a value greater than 0 but less than 0.5
Source: BVCA Report on Investment Activity (various years)
Source: BVCA Report on Investment Activity (various years)
3b. Amount invested (m)
3c. Mean size of sub-2m investments
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
15/28
with its coverage and classication. However,
the specic information it provides on each
investment enables us to probe more deeply
into investment trends than is possible from
BVCA statistics.
5.1 Total investment activity: public vs.
private investorsThe Library House database disaggregates the
type of investments into two categories: those
involving one or more private sector investors;22
and those involving one or more publicly
backed funds (e.g. Regional Venture Capital
Funds, University Challenge Funds).23
By disaggregating the data we created three
new categories:
Deals involving solely private sector1.
investors.
Deals solely made by free-standing publicly2.
backed funds.
Deals which we term co-investments in3.
which one or more private sector investors
has invested alongside one or more public
sector funds.
Investments in this nal category include
both ad hoc syndications between public
sector funds and private investors as well as
investments involving funds that have been
established specically to make co-investments
with private investors.24
Of course, public sector intervention in the
early stage venture capital market goes beyond
the establishment of public sector funds. Tax-
based incentives to encourage private investors
to invest in unquoted companies through theEnterprise Investment Scheme and Venture
Capital Trusts (VCTs) are also very signicant.
Unfortunately, the Library House database
does not identify investments made using the
Enterprise Investment Scheme and its coverage
of investments by VCTs is very patchy.25
Three key trends can be identied since 2000
(Figure 3, Table 4).
First, the public sector has become
considerably more important as an investor
in both absolute and relative terms. Dealsinvolving both public sector funds and private
investors (funds and individuals) and also
those just involving public sector funds have
risen from 67 to 221 between 2001 and
2007. Their contribution to market share has
risen from 18 per cent in 2001 to 43 per cent
in 2007. Unfortunately, the Library House
database does not always separately identify
the amounts invested by different investors
in co-investment situations, so it is extremely
difcult to distinguish between the amounts
invested by private and public sector investorsin co-investment deals. But for what it is worth,
15
This includes venture22.
capital/private equityrms, banks and other debtproviders, charities, trustsand foundations, companies,investor networks (e.g. angelsyndicates), family ofcesand individuals.
These are funds which have23.received some or all of theircapital from the publicsector, including centralgovernment departments,regional developmentagencies and the EuropeanUnion (e.g. ERDF). Theyare normally managed byindependent fund managers.
Unfortunately, the Library24.
House database does notdifferentiate betweenco-investment fundsand other public sectorfunds. So, for example,investments made by theScottish Co-InvestmentFund, Scottish Seed Fund,Scottish Venture Fund andBusiness Growth Fund arenot separately identied butsimply classied as ScottishEnterprise.
Library House only reports25.the fund managers,not the specic fund. Itonly separately reportsinvestments by VCTs whenthey have VCT in their title.
Note: Only includes deals with the investor(s) name disclosed
Source: Calculated from Library House database
Table 4: Number of investments by type of investor, 2001-2007
2001 306 22 45 373
2002 249 23 51 323
2003 273 54 86 413
2004 331 82 98 511
2005 336 122 112 570
2006 347 128 89 564
2007 296 138 83 517
Deals made byprivate and otherfunds
Public-privateinvestment deals
Deals made by free-standing public VCfunds
TotalYear
Number of Deals
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
16/28
6
Figure 3: Proportion of investments by type of investor, 2001-2007
Table 5: Amount invested (m) by type of investor, 2001-2007
Source: Calculated from Library House database
* This includes the amounts invested by both private and public investors
Note: Only includes deals with the investor(s) name disclosed
Source: Calculated from Library House database
100
90
80
70
60
50
0
40
30
20
10
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Percentage
Deals made by private and other funds
Public-private co-investment deals
Free-standing deals made by publicly backed funds
2001 306 1,317,044 26,699 20,235 1,363,978
2002 267 889,682 14,230 9,643 913,555
2003 338 668,114 52,012 17,567 737,693
2004 431 956,374 61,854 18,562 1,036,790
2005 390 611,835 85,958 32,180 729,973
2006 432 1,008,780 128,764 17,600 1,155,144
2007 387 782,669 178,851 18,549 980,069
Number of deals(with disclosedamounts)
Investments madeby private andother funds
Public-privateco-investmentamounts*
Investments madeby free-standingpublic VC funds
TotalYear
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
17/28
investments involving public sector investors,
and including amounts invested by private
investors in co-investment deals, increasedfrom 3 per cent of total investments by value in
2001 to 20 per cent in 2007 (Table 5).
Second, the increasing signicance of the
public sector has arisen because of the growth
of co-investments. These accounted for just 6
per cent of all investments in 2001 but 26 per
cent by 2007. In terms of amounts invested,
co-investments accounted for 18 per cent of
total investment in 2007 compared with just 2
per cent in 2001.
Third, co-investments are now the dominant
form of public sector venture capital
investment, accounting for 62 per cent of
all deals involving the public sector in 2007
compared with 33 per cent in 2001. Indeed,
in terms of amounts invested, investments by
free-standing public sector funds are now fairly
marginal, accounting for just 2 per cent of total
venture capital investments by value in 2007.
Finally, Table 6 (also see Figure 4) gives us a
sense of the different parts of the funding
spectrum occupied by these different types
of investors. Private sector investments (see
footnote 22 for denition) have an average size
of 3.7 million but a very wide size distribution,
with 11 per cent of deals below 250,000 but
45 per cent above 5 million. The average
public-private co-investment is smaller at 1.5
million, with 81 per cent of investments at 2
million and below. Deals involving only public
sector funds were largely conned to 500,000
and under (83 per cent; 378,000 average
size).
5.2 Unpacking the private investor category:
the signicance of business angels
The private sector comprises a very broadcategory of investors (see footnote 22).
However, by examining each investment in the
Library House database, it has been possible to
identify those investments involving business
angels.26 Two points of note emerge from this
analysis.
First, business angels have become more
signicant in both absolute and relative terms,
their investments rising from 40 in 2001 to
100 in 2007 and their share of private sector
investment doubling from 15 per cent to 30 percent (Table 7).
Second, business angels and angel groups are
prominent co-investment partners, involved
in 45 per cent to 59 per cent of all public-
private co-investment deals (Figure 9, Table 10,
Appendix).
5.3 Early stage deals below 2 million
We take this analysis a stage further to examine
the characteristics of early stage investments.
The Library House database categorises
deals in terms of rounds rather than stage of
business development; so we dene early stage
deals as involving investments below 2 million
and in rounds 1, 2 or 3. These are shown in
Table 8. Several trends are apparent.
First, in the context of an overall increase in
early stage investment activity, deals involving
public-private co-investors have increased
from 11 per cent of all deals in 2001 to 36 per
cent in 2007. In terms of the amount invested,
co-investment deals accounted for 37 per cent
of the total in 2007 compared with 10 per centin 2001.
17
We dene these as deals26.in which the investor wasa named angel group,a named individual ordescribed as a businessangel(s) or privateinvestor(s). However,given the private natureof angel investing theseinvestments identied byLibrary House will only be a
small proportion of all angelinvestments and be biasedtowards larger deals.
Table 6: Distribution of deal sizes by type of investor, 2007
Source: Calculated from Library House database
Public sector 17 21 10 6 1 - - -
investors (n=58)
Public-private 3 16 19 30 24 17 3 2
co-investments
(n=114)
Private investors 11 11 21 25 40 43 25 19
(n=195)
Less than100k
100 249k
250 499k
500 999k
1m 1.9m
2m 4.9m
5m 9.9m
10m 51m
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
18/28
8
Figure 4: Graph of number of deals by size, range and investor in 2007
Source: Calculated from Library House database
1000 250 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,000 10,000+
Amounts (000)
Free-standing deals made by publicly backed funds
Deals made by private and other funds
Public-private co-investment deals
50
45
40
35
30
25
0
20
15
10
5
Number
of deals
Table 7: Trends in investments by business angels
Note: Disclosed deals only
Source: Calculated from Library House database
2001 275 40 15 per cent
2002 227 40 18 per cent
2003 255 46 18 per cent
2004 339 69 20 per cent
2005 320 77 24 per cent
2006 346 101 29 per cent
2007 329 100 30 per cent
Total number ofinvestments withprivate investors
Number of investmentswith business angelinvestors
Deals involving businessangels as a proportion ofall investments involvingprivate sector investors
Year
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
19/28
Figure 5: Graph of proportion of early stage* investments deals, 2001-7
100
90
80
70
60
50
0
40
30
20
10
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Percentage
Deals made by private and other funds
Public-private co-investment deals
Free-standing deals made by publicly backed funds
2001 111 17 30 158 20 16 per cent
2002 104 19 35 158 26 21 per cent
2003 124 41 76 241 37 22 per cent
2004 155 66 79 300 54 24 per cent
2005 94 101 75 270 57 29 per cent
2006 118 85 56 259 70 34 per cent
2007 106 88 53 247 79 41 per cent
Deals madeby privateand otherfunds
Public-privateinvestmentdeals
Free-standingdeals made bypublicly backedfunds
Total Deals bybusinessangels
Business angelsinvestments asa percentage ofall deals withprivate investorsinvolvement^
Year
Number of Deals
19
* Dened as deals in rounds 1, 2 and 3 and less than 2m
Source: Calculated from Library House database
Table 8: Early stage investments* by year and type of investor
* Rounds 1, 2 and 3 and less than 2m
^ Deals made by private and other funds and public-private co-investment deals
Source: Calculated from Library House database
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
20/28
Second, co-investment deals have risen from
36 per cent in 2001 to 62 per cent in 2007 as
a proportion of deals involving public sector
investors. Nevertheless, the decline of free-
standing public sector investments must not
be exaggerated: in 2007, despite the fact that
in terms of total venture capital investments,
free-standing public sector funds are fairly
marginal, in the early stage market they stillaccounted for 21 per cent of all early stage
deals but only 9 per cent of the total amount
invested.
Third, although private sector investors have
become less signicant, dropping from 70 per
cent of early stage deals in 2001 to 43 per cent
in 2007, and in value terms from 86 per cent
to 53 per cent, they clearly remain a signicant
source of early stage nance. They made over
100 investments in 2007, which was more than
either co-investment deals or public sector
investments.
Fourth, the composition of the private sector
category has changed. Business angels have
become increasingly signicant as a source
of early stage investment since 2000 at the
expense of private sector funds, increasing
almost fourfold from 20 to 79 investments and
from just 16 per cent of all early stage deals
with private involvement in 2000 to 41 per cent
in 2007.
6. Conclusion
The report has sought to answer three
questions. The rst concerned whether the
supply of early stage venture capital has
increased during the recent investment
upswing.
Aggregate investment trends in the UKs earlystage venture capital market since 2000 are
confusing and difcult to summarise easily.
The skewed size distribution of investments
and small numbers of mega investments
have resulted in a volatile market, with trends
sensitive to the choice of start and end year.
It is therefore foolhardy to infer trends on the
basis of just two or three years of data. It is
equally difcult to discern clear trends in the
early stage market.
On the one hand, there has clearly been a
decline in the share of total venture capital/
private equity investment by value that is
accounted for by early stage investments since
2000, as a result of the continued growth in
management buy-outs and buy-ins. On the
other hand, the share of total deals accounted
for by early stage investments has increased.
Moreover, the overall number of early stage
investments has also increased since 2000.
The second question concerned the main
providers of early stage venture capital.
The most important development revealed by
this study is the changing nature of the UKs
0
Table 9: Amount invested (m) by type of investor, 2001-2007
* Rounds 1, 2 and 3 and less than 2m
Source: Calculated from Library House database
2001 102,461 11,508 5,685 119,654
2002 87,355 10,630 9,643 107,628
2003 95,942 22,736 17,647 136,325
2004 112,227 36,940 18,399 167,566
2005 82,755 50,858 17,145 150,758
2006 91,926 50,783 13,028 155,737
2007 93,759 65,333 15,812 174,904
Investments madeby private andother funds*
Public-privateco-investments
Free-standinginvestments made bypublicly backed funds
TotalYear
Amounts invested (only disclosed deals)
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
21/28
early stage venture capital market since 2000.
The private sector is now proportionately less
signicant, although still prominent, while
the public sector has become proportionately
more so. Further unpacking of the statistics
reveals that the composition of early stage
private investors has also changed, with
funds becoming less signicant and privateindividuals becoming more signicant. This
includes mega angels investing alone, angel
syndicates, and other forms of organised angel
investing.
The third question concerned the signicance
of government interventions to increase the
supply of early stage venture capital. This
question could only be addressed in fairly
narrow terms. The evidence to emerge from our
analysis is that public sector investment in the
early stage market has shifted from stand-
alone public sector funds to co-investing withprivate investors. This includes both ad hoc co-
investing by free-standing public sector funds
with private investors as well as co-investment
funds which are required to invest alongside
private investors.
This poses the question as to whether or not
this increased public sector involvement in early
stage venture capital investing has crowded
out private sector investors? While, given the
limitations of our data, we cannot provide a
conclusive answer to this question, there isno evidence that this is occurring. First, the
increase in public sector investment since 2000
has reduced the average size of investments in
the sub-2 million category; this would suggest
that they have lled a gap in the supply of
small investments. Second, co-investment
schemes would appear to have boosted angel
investment activity. The recent evaluation of
the Scottish Co-Investment Scheme indicates
that it has provided angel groups with greater
liquidity to make more investments, do
more funding rounds, in a context where the
minimum size of investment by private venture
capital funds has increased.27
Having intervened seemingly effectively
through the establishment of co-investment
funds, the question remaining for policymakers
is whether government can now, or in the
future, withdraw in the condence that private
sector investors will provide sufcient early
stage venture capital on their own. To reach a
robust conclusion requires further research to
answer the following questions.
Do the organised angel groups have1.
sufcient capital to maintain or increase
their scale of investment without the
leverage provided by co-investment funds?
Does the funding limit on the amount that2.
can be invested in a single company by
public sector funds constrain follow-on
investing in a co-investment situation?28
What have been the returns achieved by3.
co-investments and how do they compare
with the returns achieved by other types
of investments, and will such returns be
sufcient to recycle into further investments
without the need for further government
nancial commitment?
Are co-investments sufciently attractive4.
to encourage more private sector investors
and thereby reduce the need for further
government intervention?
We have noted the favourable assessment5.
of the Scottish Co-Investment Scheme.
Are other co-investment schemes with
different models equally successful and is
the experience of their investment partners
equally positive?
Finally, and more generally, what effect6.
is the current credit crunch having on
private investors operating in the early stage
venture capital market?
Given the importance of public-private co-
investing revealed in this report, and how little
we know about its process, operation and
outcomes, NESTA will continue to undertake
research on this topic.
21
Hayton27. et al., op. cit.
For example, Regional28.Venture Capital Funds areonly allowed to invest upto 250,000 in a singleinvestment and a maximumof 500,000 per company.
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
22/28
Appendix
2
Total investment activity: public vs. private investors
Figure 6: Number of investment deals, 2000-7
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Deals made by private and other funds
Public-private co-investment deals
Free-standing deals made by publicly backed funds
Source: Calculated from Library House database
Figure 7: Proportion of amount invested by type of investor, 2001-7
100
90
80
70
60
50
0
40
30
20
10
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Percentage
Deals made by private and other funds
Public-private co-investment deals
Free-standing deals made by publicly backed funds
Source: Calculated from Library House database
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
23/28
23
Table 10: Participation of business angels in public-private co-investment deals
Source: Calculated from Library House database
2001 22 13 59 per cent
2002 23 11 46 per cent
2003 54 27 50 per cent
2004 82 37 45 per cent
2005 122 63 52 per cent
2006 128 69 54 per cent
2007 138 70 51 per cent
Number ofco-investment deals
Number of dealsthat involved BAs
PercentageYear
Figure 8: Number of public-private co-investment deals with business angel involvement,2001-7
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Number of deals without business angel involvement
Number of deals with business angel involvement
Source: Calculated from Library House database
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
24/28
4
Early stage below 2m
Figure 9: Number of early stage* investments deals, 2001-7
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Deals made by private and other funds
Public-private co-investment deals
Free-standing deals made by publicly backed funds
* Rounds 1, 2 and 3 and less than 2m
Source: Calculated from Library House database
Figure 10: Proportion of invested amounts in the early stage*, 2001-7
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Years
Investments made by private and other funds
Public-private co-investments
Free-standing investments made by publicly backed funds
Percentage
* Rounds 1, 2 and 3 and less than 2m
Source: Calculated from Library House database
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
25/28
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
26/28
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
27/28
8/14/2019 Shifting Sands Report NESTA
28/28
NESTA
1 Plough Place
London EC4A 1DE